Dear Congresswoman Maloney,

Oh I can certainly see (4.00 / 2)

how United for NY values the democratic process. If you consider  urging qualified candidates to stay out of the process democratic.  

---

by: JohnS @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 13:44:06 PM CDT

This letter is another sign that Gillibrand (4.00 / 2)

has a lot more support in NYC than is generally known.

---

by: devtob @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 13:49:40 PM CDT

Yes, Dev... (0.00 / 0)

60 Gillibrand partisans just decided the race by signing a letter. /snort

---

by: Hudson @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 17:52:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

now that's the way to get a first time post bumped to the front page (4.00 / 1)

"Impressive list of names"?

So we're back into the universe of who knows who?

Not a very exciting press release, even for a slow day.

---

by: simonstl @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 14:22:43 PM CDT

A lot of those names are important party activists. (4.00 / 1)

There's at least a few people in there from the Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy Committee, for instance. Also TAP's own Brian Keeler.  

---

by: Adama @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 00:45:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So TAP (0.00 / 0)

is becoming about "important party activists"?

Does the "This belongs to you.  Take it back..." headline at the top only appear when party activists log in?

---

by: simonstl @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 07:41:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

TAP is about New York politics. (4.00 / 1)

And by virtue of hard work, its founders have become important people in NY politics. Does that make them automatically lose all credibility?  

---

by: Adama @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 09:07:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

this piece damages TAP's credibility with me, yes (4.00 / 2)

It's a diary posted by a first time user, whose sole appeal is a list of names of party people - most of whom have little or nothing to do with TAP.  Yes, I know who NYBri is, and Judith Hope's joined the Gillibrand chorus here, but that's really it.

If an important point of TAP is to support particular factions of the State Democratic Committee, that makes it vastly less interesting to me.

Making it worse is the "ohmigod we can't have a PRIMARY" aspect of it, which really makes a mockery of damn near everything we discuss here on state politics.

If its founders becoming important people in NY politics means that TAP is going to become just another part of the party structure, that's a serious problem for TAP.

The loss of credibility isn't automatic - but it's certainly accelerating.

---

by: simonstl @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 09:15:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ahh, hyperbole. (0.00 / 0)

Why does it surprise you that most TAP contributors support Gillibrand? This place is about new blood in government, and openness. Gillibrand is, party support aside, a relative outsider, and has demonstrated an impressively high interest in government transparency.

---

by: Adama @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 09:48:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's not so much that people support Gillibrand (0.00 / 0)

After all, I do too.

It's the way that support gets shown that deeply troubles me.

---

by: simonstl @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 10:20:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah, Gillibrand is an "outsider"... (0.00 / 0)

... like I'm a member of Opus Dei.

She's a direct descendent of Corning machine and a lobbyist who dated Pataki's spokeswman for years. Then a corporate lawyer for Philip Morris. Then plucked to run by the Dem establishment, and tapped by the Governor.

If that's an outsider, I'd like to know what an insider is.

---

by: Hudson @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 17:38:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Damage to our credibility? (4.00 / 2)

There is only one founder of TAP on that list. Phillip isn't on it (and I think Phillip has pretty much stayed out of it because he's a little busy right now making sure he has a job from one day to the next) and as someone who has been a front-pager since October 2007, I am not on such a list. I wasn't asked and after the shenanigans with Tasini's letter about appointing a progressive senator, I wouldn't have signed it anyway.

I love the critics here, but this idea that if you work inside the party it makes you anti-activist is far from reality. Brian's role here, especially in recent months, has been minimal at best. Brian has always had a lot on his plate and now that he is communications director for the New York State Senate, he puts someone with serious progressive and activist credentials in that chamber. The same can be said of Phillip, who has done a lot over the last several weeks in feeding me and other New York bloggers information on the coup and pre-coup Senate information.

Just say it Simon: You think these guys, particularly Brian, have sold themselves out. I don't think they sold out, but in case you haven't realized, blogging doesn't pay well. You don't see me blogging a lot because I'm busy making $8.61 an hour at a state park. Can't find a long-term position, at least around here, and since blogging pays me nothing and my job pays me about $300 more a week than blogging does, I'll take my job over blogging. Does that mean I'm a sell out too? Money is more important than blogging? How dare I...

Our credibility is fine. We have not censored any pro-Maloney or pro-Tasini people, or even those who support a primary. We welcome all points of view. We may disagree, but that's democracy. I do not think a primary is the best way to go, but I will not cry because there is a primary. So this talk about our credibility is meaningless. And it is bordering on personal attacks each time they are mentioned.

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 09:54:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, I worry that TAP is selling out (4.00 / 1)

I've worried about it for a long time, as various TAP folks grew more deeply involved with variety of aspects of the NYS Democratic establishment.  It's not exactly a shocking development - it's an occupational hazard.  Reformers become establishment on a regular basis, especially in New York.

And no, "selling out" doesn't necessarily mean censoring people on the opposite side of those you've sold out to, any more than my calling our legislature corrupt means that I think it all runs through bribes.  There are a lot of steps between an open conversation and strict control.  

I don't think, however, that's you have sold out.  I'm still sometimes mystified by your jumping on various bandwagons, but that seems to be about your own opinions, and not about connections.

This probably rates a bigger conversation than a comment thread many levels down, but with the holiday coming up, I suspect it's probably not the best time to have it.

---

by: simonstl @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 10:20:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

i will simply say this (4.00 / 3)

my only involvement in this post was to call out a sockpuppet further down the thread. it seems that both "UES" and "UWSer" are posting from the same ip addy.

i've pretty much stayed out of all of the gillibrand/anybody but gillibrand threads and had nothing to do with this post.

just sayin'.

TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 10:26:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't find... (4.00 / 2)

Gillibrand as "the establishment." The party establishment can support her (and they have, which was expected) but my support her and other grassroots support for her does not mean I or others like me have thrown our activism and progressive netroots mentality out the window.

I believe in supporting the best candidate. Gillibrand is the best candidate in my view. It has nothing to do with her pseudo-incumbency. It has everything to do with her approach to being a legislator and a representative.

I do not jump on any bandwagons. I give a lot of thought to these things. For example, I am a fan of the Working Families Party. I am, however, not a fan of the WFP's support of Shelly Silver. Those with power in the WFP know how progressive bloggers feel about Silver.

The problem we run into, as bloggers, is that this isn't a paying job. I am looking for something, both in New York and outside of it, that will give me a full-time job where blogging can still be a hobby of mine that I enjoy. You wouldn't believe how many people want me to write something for them and yet, when I ask if there are any jobs available with their respective office, they laugh.

Phillip and Brian need to pay the bills. Their jobs also give them an opportunity to be a voice for change. That's a good thing. That's exactly who we want in government.

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 11:07:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hope no TAP principles or alums... (0.00 / 0)

... were among those who orchestrated the recent and oh-so-mature turning out of the lights and locking of the doors antics that members of our party tried to pull when they got caught with their pants down by the GOP.

---

by: Hudson @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 17:54:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Party insiders celebrating themselves? (0.00 / 0)

Brian, we've known each other a while -- but isn't calling a list of names that includes one's own name "impressive" a bit much?

I recognize a couple of those names:

Denise King -- Gillibrand's original honorary campaign "manager," surprise, surprise. Was the do-nothing Columbia County chair for years; once she left, Dems actually started winning again.

Karen Feldman, good buddy of Denise King, married to a Republican, helps make sure that Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy money goes mainly to their pals.

I tend to assume the rest are of the same ilk.

---

by: Hudson @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 17:27:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, don't get me started on the Roosevelt Legacy clique. (0.00 / 0)

Here's a little story about that Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy clique, several of whose members signed this letter.

Back in 2006, we ran a diverse slate of 37 candidates for the Hudson Democratic Committee, the Hudson Common Council, and the Columbia County Board of Supervisors. More than half of our candidates were women. The slate also included many African-American candidates, the first Bangaladeshi candidate in Hudson history, and a good mix of new- and old-time residents, in a town which had seen much strife and division.

You'd think that would be the kind of slate people like Denise King and Karen Feldman would support... Right? Wrong.

Our women candidates got the bare minimum funding from the ERL, whereas a close friend of ERL poo-bahs, a woman who had a terrible political record in both her town and the county at large (e.g. lost her job at the Board of Elections due to her behavior) got many, many times time more funding that the female Hudson candidates did -- so that she could run a vanity, longshot race in a tiny rural town in another part of the County.

Meanwhile, King, Feldman and their buddies tried to instigate primaries against our most progressive candidates for Democratic Committee in Hudson, swooping in for another town to prepare their petitions.

But all their people lost.( I was one of those primaried -- I won 2-to-1 against the people they'd put up to try to keep progressive people off the Columbia County Committee.)

32 out of 37 of our candidates won; the ERL darling lost.

So when people like Denise King and Karen Feldman oppose a primary to protect a Blue Dog friend, I just have to laugh.

---

by: Hudson @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 17:50:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

FINALLY, SOME COMMON SENSE (4.00 / 2)

Now if only Maloney will take this letter seriously and reign in her oversized ego and deep bitterness at not being chosen to be Senator even after she campaigned shamelessly for the appointment.

The Republicans must be smiling today.

---

by: UES @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 14:44:27 PM CDT

UES IS RIGHT! (4.00 / 2)

The strongest possible Republican contender will enter the race if Maloney pursues a divisive primary contest.  Why do I think it will be divisive?  Because Carolyn Maloney has already begun with harsh, personal attacks on Gillibrand's character, and integrity.  The letter is right on point:  Maloney should stay in the house where she can do the most good for New York with her seniority and newly-found power on the Joint Economic Committee.  Gillibrand is working hard and proving herself to be an extremely effective US Senator for New York.  Why put all of that at such great risk?

---

by: pencequince @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 15:25:22 PM CDT

Gillibrand has been polling BEHIND Pataki... (0.00 / 0)

... well before Maloney got seriously into the picture.

But yeah, it must somehow be Maloney's fault that Gillibrand can't outpoll Elmer.

---

by: Hudson @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 17:56:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maloney (4.00 / 1)

Baloney!

---

by: hawkny @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 15:32:32 PM CDT

Wow, you really convince people to support Gillibrand (0.00 / 0)

with such mature, substantive comments.

---

by: Hudson @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 17:56:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

FUNDING? (0.00 / 0)

Maybe the Republicans are putting up the funding for Maloney's quixotic quest.  Expect the NY Post to endorse Maloney so as to make way for a Republican victory.

---

by: UWSer @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 15:51:54 PM CDT

so (0.00 / 0)

did you cross central park sometime today from east to west?

TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 16:00:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

These signers should be ashamed of themselves (4.00 / 2)

Why should NY Democrats not have a choice for NY senator in the US Congress?  

Just because David Patterson had his vote, that does not excuse the state from getting their vote in the proper time.
Democracy is where the people decide.

A constitutional amendment gave us this right to vote for senate and should be embraced not discarded.

---

by: krone5 @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 21:36:47 PM CDT

Ever heard of freedom of expression? (4.00 / 2)

Uh...these people don't have the right to express themselves freely? How is that NOT part of the democratic process that you are touting? You miss the point: Maloney will lose her seniority--even if she wins--and either way, NY loses an effective advocate. That doesn't even take into account the millions of dollars and hours spent pursuing a primary between two candidates who have virtually identical platforms. If it's exhaustive, it opens a big fat hole for the Republican Party.

I'd like to know how many commenters who spout about the Democratic process are out there canvassing, donating, stuffing envelopes, fundraising etc. It's easy to talk about democracy when you do not have to put in the funds and time that will be drained from the Party in the next year to conduct this exercise. The bottom line should be: what is best for NY--for these two candidates to collaborate, or fight?  

---

by: fran20 @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 22:36:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll chime in here. (0.00 / 0)

"I'd like to know how many commenters who spout about the Democratic process are out there canvassing, donating, stuffing envelopes, fundraising etc."

I've done all those things ad nauseum--and a good part of that time was spent trying to defend Democrats from other ostensible "Democrats" who wanted to burn the place down if they couldn't get their own way. THAT is why some of us are leery of primaries. Don't give me any high minded rhetoric about democratic systems without also acknowledging the reality of the problems.  

---

by: Adama @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 00:42:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

p.s. (0.00 / 0)

There will be another election in 2012--we need another one now?  

---

by: fran20 @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 22:39:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

BECAUSE she's a good senator, and a primary will be (4.00 / 2)

bloody, expensive, and will benefit the republican oppoonent.  
And Paterson only has one "t"...  

---

by: janed @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 14:30:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Is There a Place Where I Can Sign That Letter? (4.00 / 2)

It's conclusions are dead on.  

---

by: Rufus T. Firefly @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 22:14:14 PM CDT

What's wrong with democracy? (4.00 / 1)

Why should we not have a primary here?  I find this argument very disturbing.

An unelected Senator appointed by an unelected Governor and we should just role over and accept the person who will represent 20 million people?  Without so much as an election?  Why?

I am surprised to see such a "fall-in-line-behind-the party-leaders" tendency here at TAP.  (That is, not the posting itself - as it is clearly a part our party's conversation today - but rather the widespread support).  I never thought of this community as one that discourages primaries.

If you support Gillibrand, vote for her, campaign for her, donate to her.  Don't try and bully legitimate candidates out of the race.  

---

by: Paul Newell @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 11:59:45 AM CDT

What are you all afraid of? (4.00 / 2)

Let 9 candidates challenge Gillibrand. The more the merrier. By excluding candidates or discouraging them to run, aren't you really destroying the democracy you so crave to protect?
Democrats will unite behind the victor, unless of course, Maloney wins; will you Gillibrand supporters support her as you now want Maloney supporters to get behind Kirsten??? I wonder...
It is up to the members of the party to vote for then rally behind the winner, whomever that may be.

Tax the Church.

---

by: furiousdee @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 10:39:52 AM CDT

One thing I am afraid of... (0.00 / 0)

Is a damaging primary where we end up losing this seat to a Republican. It has happened before in New York, so we can't say that there aren't any examples of this.

Because of the primary's close proximity to the general election, it does not give us the kind of time we need to recover. Those of us who advocated so passionately for Jon Powers in NY-26 last year know this. And those that remember the 1992 U.S. Senate Democratic primary that ended up assisting D'Amato, a Republican, get elected is something that is worth keeping in the back of our minds.

Democracy will be exercised no matter what. Those that keep repeating "are you afraid of a primary?" are missing the point. If there is a primary on the issues, fine. That IS democracy. But if this is going to be about a bunch of opportunists trying to belittle the appointee, then we aren't doing ourselves any favors. So far, we haven't seen that.

And while you believe that Democrats will unite behind the victor, I believe that it might be the case, but it will be very difficult. You can't tell someone to just flip their allegiance after a year (or more) of supporting another candidate. This was the case with Hillary Clinton supporters. This was the case with Jon Powers supporters. It takes time. Eventually, they will come around. But you won't be able to flip someone overnight.

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 11:43:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The same concern trolling, over and over again. (0.00 / 0)

Gee, we've never heard this song and dance before.

So I'll remind people again:

1. Hillary Clinton's team tried to clear the field by locking up endorsements, hiring all the top fundraisers, warning people they better get on the bandwagon now or they wouldn't be welcome later, and telling the media she was the "inevitable" nominee;

2. Barack Obama, among others, ignored all that bluster.

3. People wrung their hands that the long and costly Democratic primary battle would lead to a Republican vicotry in November; Rush Limbaugh even urged people to vote for Hillary just to extend the Dem primary;

4. But guess what? The Democratic Party came out of that process with a nominee who was fully vetted, battle-tested, wickedly-well organized, and also able to re-unite the party.

5. And then the winner of that oh-so damaging primary beat the pants off the Republican in November.

---

by: Hudson @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 17:33:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The same concern? (0.00 / 0)

To you, it might be the same, but it is actually very different. You can't compare the presidential primary to this one.

(1) Yes, Hillary Clinton's team tried to clear the field. But that wasn't about to happen. How many people have been the favorite to win a year out and ended up not winning? Hillary Clinton is just one of many now, at least in terms of the presidential field.

(2) I don't think Obama ignored it. If you ignore it, you ignore a very competitive candidate. Clinton isn't a pushover. I supported Obama in the primaries, but knew that Clinton was going to be tough to beat.

(3) The presidential primary was different. It was over by June, giving us five months to prepare. The Senate primary ends in early September and gives us less than two months to prepare. For a statewide race and fighting for the votes of 19 million people, that isn't a lot of time. Five months compared to about seven or eight weeks? There is no comparison.

(4) You're right: The Democratic Party came out with a great candidate. But you also had people who had to get over the loss of their favorite candidate. I know countless Hillary supporters, especially from this state, who said the following: "I will support Obama, but it's going to take time. He needs to win me over just like Hillary did." I can't tell you how many times I heard that. That can be said of any candidate in any race.

(5) That's true, he did. But I didn't that it was a "damaging" primary. It was a competitive one. The Republicans attacked Obama AND Clinton and Obama and Clinton went after each other, while also debating the issues. So far, we have a Senate primary featuring a candidate (Maloney) who apparently is running as the anti-Gillibrand candidate. You tell me what the value in that is.

I also will note that you completely dodge the 1992 example. That is a very key example to use here and it was key to my argument.  

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 19:02:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gee, I guess the race is over... (0.00 / 0)

... now that 60 well-heeled Gillibrand partisans eager to preserve their personal access to the appointed Senator  have signed a letter.

---

by: Hudson @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 17:29:03 PM CDT